Will Liberals Show Similar Concern over Pulp Mill Permit Advice?
Kim Booth MP
Greens Forestry spokesperson
Wednesday, 28 September 2011
For Comment: David Reilly, Senior Communications Advisor, 0428 510 641
mps.tas.greens.org.au
The Tasmanian Greens today accepted a briefing from the Solicitor-General over legal advice regarding the process undertaken to resolve the contractual dispute between Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania.
Greens Forestry spokesperson Kim Booth MP said that the power-sharing Parliament had already set the precedent on a similar matter when the Liberals voted in support of receiving a briefing regarding confidential advice over the Price Waterhouse Coopers energy review last year.
Mr Booth also reiterated that the Greens had required that an independent Probity Auditor process have oversight of the Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania contractual dispute, and all that information had been publicly released.
“Both the Greens and the Liberal parties were offered a briefing by the Solicitor-General, to be conducted by the end of this week, on this important matter, and it is gob-smacking that the Liberal party have rejected this offer,” Mr Booth said.
“All elected representatives have the responsibility to make informed decisions, and the Greens take that responsibility seriously, hence we have accepted the offer of the briefing to inform us whether further action is appropriate.”
“The fact that this was nothing more than a political game by the Liberals is exposed by the fact that they refused to answer when they were questioned whether they would support a similar motion calling for the Solicitor-General to release any advice on whether the Pulp Mill Permit has expired. The silence was deafening.”
“Silence over the Pulp Mill Permit advice being released exposed that the Liberals were not motivated by principal or the public interest, but just short-term political gain.”

• Lara Giddings, MP

Premier

Wednesday, 28 September 2011

Briefing offer declined

The Premier, Lara Giddings, said she was disappointed the Legislative Council had declined an offer of a confidential briefing on the legal advice which informed the payment of commercial settlement to Gunns Limited and Forestry Tasmania.

Ms Giddings said the offer had been made in good faith to allow the Legislative Council to understand the strong legal basis on which payments were made to both parties.

“I am concerned that some members of the Legislative Council may be more interested in the politics of this matter rather than the facts themselves,” Ms Giddings said.

Ms Giddings said the State Government had gone to great lengths to cooperate with the Upper House, including providing a briefing from the Solicitor General on the dangerous precedent set by tabling privileged legal and cabinet-in-confidence advice.

“We have nothing to hide, which is why we allowed an independent probity auditor to review all documentation in the commercial settlement process.

“But it is no accident that Westminster convention dictates that Solicitor General advice and Cabinet-in-confidence material should remain confidential.

“There are a number of compelling reasons for this, which we have given in great detail, both in briefings with the Legislative Council and in today’s Lower House debate.

“The State Government receives hundreds of pieces of legal advice every year and the release of this advice has occurred in only a small fraction of extraordinary circumstances in the past 10 years.”

Ms Giddings said the State Government would defend the principle of legal professional privilege and Cabinet confidentiality.

“Undermining these important conventions would set a dangerous precedent for the future.

“However, as a show of good faith, the offer of a confidential briefing will remain on the table for any member of Parliament who wants to better understand the Government’s decision-making process on this matter.”

Earlier:

Confidential briefing offered to Parliamentarians

The Premier, Lara Giddings, said today an offer had been made in good faith to provide all members of Parliament with a confidential briefing on the legal advice which informed the legal settlement with Gunns Limited and Forestry Tasmania.

If the offer is accepted, the Solicitor General will be made available to brief members in the coming days, in order to comply with the motion passed by the Legislative Council last week.

“This shows they were only ever interested in politics and grandstanding, rather than understanding the full facts of this complex issue.”

Ms Giddings cited legal professional privilege and the fact that the advice is subject to Cabinet confidentiality, as reasons why it should not be tabled in Parliament.

“While I am aware of the keen interest members have in the issues surrounding the recent offer to Gunns, releasing Solicitor-General’s advice is not the usual practice of government,” Ms Giddings said.

“At the heart of my concerns is the fundamental principle of legal professional privilege, enjoyed by governments and citizens alike, in relation to legal advice and proceedings which underpins the proper administration of justice.

“It has been a long-standing convention of our system of government that legal advice to government should be treated judiciously and confidentially.

“It is critical that proper legal advice is obtained by government on a confidential basis without fear that that advice may end up being provided to another party to potential or existing litigation, to the detriment of the Crown and therefore ultimately, the public.

“Disclosure may even prompt and assist the commencement of legal proceedings against the Crown and other parties.”

Ms Giddings said because the advice was prepared for Cabinet, it is subject to Cabinet-in-Confidence provisions.

“It is a fundamental aspect of Westminster government that the Cabinet process remains confidential. Without this strict confidence the principle of ministerial collective responsibility could not be maintained.”

Ms Giddings said a written offer had been made to all members of Parliament for a formal briefing on the advice, on the condition that it remains confidential.

“This briefing will allow all members to understand and satisfy themselves of the strong legal basis on which offers of commercial settlement were made to Forestry Tasmania and Gunns Limited.

“The State Government has already made every effort to ensure the process is as open and transparent as possible, including the appointment of an independent probity auditor.

“The probity auditor’s report, along with letters exchanged between the State and the Commonwealth are already available on the Treasury website.”

Advice is provided to the Govt as representatives of the public in the public interest, not on behalf of political hacks.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 28/09/11 at 09:18 PM

Point to Lala I think. We pay our politicians, government and opposition alike, to make informed decisions on our behalf. Declining to be informed is an abdication of responsibility.

Posted by Steve on 28/09/11 at 09:50 PM

Spending $11.5 million to avoid ‘expensive legal action’ must be one of the funniest things Tasmania’s crippled government has come up with in a long time. Given the government claims they are not involved in either Gunns or Forestry Tasmania, you wonder why they paid Gunns debts with taxpayers money?

Posted by Karl Stevens on 28/09/11 at 09:55 PM

The 5 Green MPs should have joined with the Liberals to defeat the Government on the withheld advice of Solicitor-General over the payment of commercial settlement to Gunns Limited and Forestry Tasmania.

Then at least the Greens MPs would have had a direct precedent to expect Liberal Opposition reciprocity to support a similar motion calling for the Solicitor-General’s advice to the EPA Dirctor, Alex Schaap on whether the Pulp Mill Permit had expired.

Isn’t politics the art of compromise?

Posted by David Obendorf on 28/09/11 at 11:51 PM

All true Liberals desire to live in ignorance of advice. Abborr on immigation and a price on Carbon and now in the upper and lower houses of Tasmania.

Eather then informed criticism mindless opposition is the preferred approach feeding on minority opinion and ignoring the majority.

Except with immiggration where Abbott will defacto support the popular on shore processing.

Posted by phill Parsons on 29/09/11 at 06:36 AM

I don’t accept Lara’s ideas that everything the government does with legal advice needs to be kept from the masses.
We may still live in a feudal system but I am of the belief that we deserve to know why such a large amount of our tax payments were given away.
The debt from Gunns to Forestry Tasmania is a commercial contract that should have been sorted out in court. For the taxpayer to be required to pay the debt for a private company without any actual proof of a need being supplied to us is tantamount to corruption.
It is time that the government pulled their arms out of their sleeves and started to do what a government is paid to do.
They cannot hide behind “commercial in confidence”, “independent umpire” or “legal privelege” all the time. The governments job is to represent the people not commercial interests.
So stop the bullshit and turn the cards over.
We know you are sitting there with an empty hand.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 29/09/11 at 06:59 AM

Did the Solicitor General advise the government to add 10% for GST to the publicly announced payments to Gunns and FT, so that the Deeds allot $25.3m ($23m) to Gunns and $12.65m ($11.5m) to FT,making the total government payout is $37.95m, an extra $3.45m.
While this amount will eventually find its way into the national GST pot, and may be re-allocated (or more) to Tasmania under the COAG formula, nonetheless it has to come out of the State coffers right now.
So, where does the extra $3.45m come from? From IGA money, in which case contractors and others wishing to exit the industry will be short changed; or from general revenue, in which case schools, hospitals etc will be short changed?
Either way, it’s just another example of the lack of transparency surrounding the government’s dealings on whole forest industry.

Posted by lmxly on 29/09/11 at 08:12 AM

Louise [comment #7] do you actually know something about this extra 10% payment - perhaps from sources close to the Government - on these pay-out matters?

Do you know that this IS the reason why Lara Giddings is so reluctant to give over the Solicitor-General’s advice she received on the payout deal to Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania?

Always useful to have an insider turning the cards over on Tasmanian Times! ;-)

Posted by David Obendorf on 29/09/11 at 08:49 AM

As a version of “hands off” policy, this is a farce.

Posted by salamander on 29/09/11 at 12:53 PM

Details of the Deed between the Crown and Forestry Tasmania and the Crown and Gunns have now been released on the Treasury website:

Under the terms of Clause 3 of its Deed, FT has been paid the sum of $12,650,000 (GST inclusive) to terminate Gunns’ Wood Supply Agreements and the China Sale Agreement (the details of which are not on the public record) and “agrees to set aside the Reserves and to do and facilitate all that it reasonably can to further the requirements of the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) particularly but without limitation:

1. provision of data and information as reasonably required by the Independent Verification Group to which the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement refers to facilitate its work

2. creation of the required Informal Reserves pursuant to clauses 25 and 28

3. not to supply wood or allow wood production within the High Conservation Value forest area in accordance with the requirements of clause 26”

However, last month FT sent a letter to the Australian and Tasmanian governments advising that harvesting will need to continue on 41 coupes within the areas identified as Reserves:

If FT continues to blatantly breach the terms of the Deed and the IGA by continuing harvesting operations within the 430,000 hectares placed into Reserves it will be liable to repay the full sum back to the Crown.

It should also be noted that the sum paid to Gunns by the Crown amounts to $25,300,000 (inclusive of GST) and the total cost of these settlements is therefore 10% higher than claimed by the Premier.

Treasury has still failed to justify the need to make these payments and obstinately refuses to publicly release the legal advice provided by the Solicitor General under the pretext of legal professional privilege.

Posted by PB on 29/09/11 at 02:26 PM

There have been off colour decisions made in relation to Gunns; changing the RPDC process being a stand out. There are questions in relation to Forestry Tasmania; where the two merge the public need to be informed. Many of us don’t trust Forestry Tasmania nor do we trust Gunns; it is natural that we can’t trust the Labor Government in not allowing information being made public about the reasoning for financial transactions between the two. The question arises what is Labor trying to hide?

Gosh, ordinary bludgers in Tasmania get hook-winked time & time again! That’s close to $38 million!

Which ‘pot’of Julia’s IGA money does that extra few million come from Premier Giddings?

Posted by David Obendorf on 29/09/11 at 11:55 PM

#12 Where did you think I got the information in #7 from? From reading the Deeds on the govt website of course - as PB pointed out. It does not take ‘sources close to the government’ - whatever you imply by that term; simply paying attention to what is on the public record is all that is required.

Posted by lmxly on 01/10/11 at 11:48 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.